Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund v. Whitehouse Estates, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-07286
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund v. Whitehouse Estates, Magistrate Judge Parker granted leave to file a second amended complaint.
Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund and the defendants in the case, including the proposed newly added defendant William W. Koeppel.
What happened
In Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund v. Whitehouse Estates, the plaintiff asked to add William W. Koeppel as a defendant and pursue claims related to alleged transfers of property and unpaid obligations. The plaintiff also identified two other defendants added in an earlier amended complaint.
The plaintiff asked the court to skip a required conference and either treat its request as a motion to amend or allow it to file a formal motion. The plaintiff said no defendants had appeared and that served defendants were in default, but the opinion does not independently resolve those assertions.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker found that no conference was necessary and granted the plaintiff's request to file a second amended complaint. Judge Parker ordered the plaintiff to file it by May 31, 2024, and stated that a newly added defendant would have 21 days to respond after service.
The detailed version
- Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund v. Whitehouse Estates, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07286
- Andrew Carter
- May 20, 2024
Background
Building Service 32BJ Pension Fund submitted a status letter and requested permission to file a second amended complaint. The letter stated that the Fund had added Koeppel & Koeppel Realty Management, Inc. and WWK 140 Bay Ridge LLC in an earlier amended complaint. The Fund said it had served WWK 140 Bay Ridge LLC but had difficulty serving Koeppel & Koeppel Realty Management, Inc.
The Fund sought to add William W. Koeppel as a defendant. According to the Fund, Mr. Koeppel was the sole member of both newly added defendants and had allegedly transferred property associated with WWK 140 Bay Ridge LLC. The Fund proposed theories of individual liability under New York law and under a corporate-veil-piercing theory. These were the Fund's asserted theories; the order did not decide whether they were legally or factually valid.
Request and Ruling
The Fund asked the court to waive a pre-motion conference and either grant leave to file the second amended complaint or permit the Fund to make a formal motion. The court found that no conference was necessary and granted the Fund's request to file a second amended complaint.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered the Fund to file the amended complaint by Friday, May 31, 2024. The court also reminded the Fund to file a status letter stating when the newly added defendant had been served. The newly added defendant would have the standard 21 days to respond after service. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 43 as granted by the order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it granted permission to amend the pleading and did not decide the underlying liability claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.